File History

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the --follow flag for rename tracking and the mandatory repo_path condition when the server isn't in a git repo. These are behavioral details beyond the read-only hint, though it doesn't describe return format or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by use cases and a critical note. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, use cases, rename tracking, and a prerequisite. It lacks an output schema but the tool's return value is inferable from the described purpose; minor gap is not mentioning commit count limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the overall purpose but adds no specific parameter-level detail beyond what schema fields provide, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Show the full commit history of a specific file' with explicit scope and output dimensions (who, when, how much, why). It differentiates from sibling tools like churn or commit_patterns by focusing on a single file's history rather than aggregate metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete use cases ('understanding why a file looks the way it does, finding when a bug was introduced') that help the agent decide when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to distinguish from siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.